Pics of (unpaid/non-model released) children diving in piers: Exploitative or just fun?

[Drew 0]

With the whole Wyatt Neumann issue out there, I was challenged on something else about the rights of children as models, the ubiquitous shots of kids swimming at piers in Indonesia/Philippines/some poorer remote island somewhere. Many people have those shots from live-aboard trips in the areas and sometimes the entire village's kids join in the fun of a photo shoot at their pier. Some of these shots have won awards and have been published in magazines etc, profiting from that photo shoot. Obviously the kids aren't going to see the money or prizes, so their hour of fun is all they get out of it since usually it's not possible to post them a pic. I've attempted a few times for some villages in Indonesia, asking the live-aboard boats to drop off printed pics of the kids for them to at least get something out of it, but usually the live-aboard forgets to do it or they give it to the wrong village etc.

Obviously the kids didn't sign a model-release or even know what that is. They were willing participants but perhaps their parents should be the one saying yes or no?

I was just wondering what people thought of such pics and whether they think it's fair to the kids?

[bvanant 190]

It is not obvious to me that using a photo in a contest is "commercial" use. I was under the impression that model releases were only necessary for commercial use (an ad for a dive resort for example) but that any other use was OK. If you think about the photo contest, does the submission only become commercial if you won something? The ethics of the situation are not as simple as the legality (and that might be complex), but simply being published in a magazine is not necessarily commercial use, editorial use is OK in this regard I think.

Bill

[Drew 0]

Bill in terms of legality, editorial or any other publish use that requires payment is pretty much commercial no? I think the ethics side of it is pertinent as well. So many photogs, myself included, have done it over the years. I brought it up because in some ways, it can be seen as exploitative, even on something as innocent as social media. So much so I think next time I do it, I'm going to bring along a printer so they can have something to remember by. I just never remember to do so!

[MikeVeitch 0]

Theoretically model releases are only needed for advertising, not for editorial use. Think about newspapers, all those people in the shots in the news most certainly haven't signed a release.

 

Going off to google Wyatt Neumann....

[bvanant 190]

Drew:

I think bringing a printer along is a great idea and many live-aboards actually have printers that you might use. In terms of Wyatt Neumann it was his own daughter that he shot and my opinion of the photos is not important. and as Mike pointed out editorial use is very different than commercial use (typically an advertisement). When we were diving in Fiji I often sent prints back to villages that were visited weekly by the Seri Ni Wai and years later people took me into their homes to see the photos of their kids that I sent.

Very cool.

 

Bill

[Drew 0]

Theoretically model releases are only needed for advertising, not for editorial use. Think about newspapers, all those people in the shots in the news most certainly haven't signed a release.

 

Going off to google Wyatt Neumann....

But taking a picture of a child without parental consent is illegal I think. As for the editorial issue, that may be true for US 1st Amendment rights. So how does that work for model releases since their parents didn't sign their rights away. I think that's an entirely different story, which is why I brought it up. The Wyatt Neumann issue was just a segue into this issue, which is about children's rights and whether it's exploitative.

Using them for competitions usually requires model releases, in which case, even Wetpixel's POTW competitions needs them. Then there's the individual country's own laws (or lack thereof) in places in Indonesia etc.